The Royal London Mutual Insurance Society · DRN-6190677

The complaint Ms H complains The Royal London Mutual Insurance Society (Royal London) didn’t return the identity documentation securely by registered post. This has resulted in the documents going missing and putting them at risk of fraud. This complaint is brought by Mr H – who holds Enduring Power of Attorney (EPoA) for Ms H. What happened In June 2025 Mr H sent various documents to Royal London to be able to deal with Ms H’s whole of life policy on her behalf. These documents were sent via registered post. A cover letter with the documents confirmed a change of address for both of them. It also asked for the EPoA to be returned to Mr H’s address. Royal London returned the documents the following day. A cover letter accompanied the documents confirming photocopies had been taken of them and their request had been passed to the relevant area to assess. In July 2025 Mr H contacted Royal London on three occasions to say he hadn’t received any of the documents back. He also confirmed the EPoA was the original. In the final call he was told these were returned on 10 June 2025 by standard post. Royal London also confirmed Mr H had sent a certified copy of the EPoA and not the original. Mr H was unhappy and raised a complaint. He said he was told to send the documents to them by registered post but they hadn’t taken the same care when returning the documents to him and Ms H. Royal London looked into what happened but didn’t uphold the complaint. They said that as the documents weren’t originals and no specific request had been made by Ms H or Mr H then they were returned using standard post. They also said that once the post enters the Royal Mail system they are no longer responsible for what happens – and without a tracking number they couldn’t advise where the documents went. Mr H remained unhappy with the response and referred the complaint to our service. Mr H mentioned to us that fraudulent accounts had been opened in his name since the documents went missing and believes it’s related to this incident. One of our Investigators looked into the complaint but didn’t uphold it. They said there are no specific rules for how a business should return documents to a customer. And without a specific request from the customer then it was reasonable to use standard Royal Mail post. The Investigator also explained that the documents sent to Royal London were all copies, including the EPoA, and there was no evidence to suggest the missing documents were the cause of the fraudulent accounts opened in Mr H’s name. Mr H, on behalf of Ms H, disagreed with the Investigator’s findings saying that Royal London had a duty to its customers. The Investigator wasn’t persuaded to change her mind so the complaint has come to me to consider everything and make a final decision.

-- 1 of 3 --

What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I agree with the conclusions reached by our Investigator for broadly the same reasons. Firstly, I understand Ms H and Mr H’s strength of feeling towards the loss of important personal documentation. I appreciate this would cause worry about how this information could be used. But the focus of my decision is on whether Royal London took reasonable steps in ensuring the documents were returned to Ms H and her son. Royal London have said the documents were returned via standard post as they were copies of the original documents and a specific request hadn’t been made to return the documents using registered post. Having reviewed the available evidence, I’m satisfied the documents were returned by Royal London on 10 June 2025. I’m also satisfied the documents sent to Royal London were copies, including the EPoA which was a certified copy by a Solicitor. I’ve also reviewed the cover letter Mr H sent accompanying the documents to Royal London and no particular request was made. So I’m satisfied that it’s reasonable for Royal London to use a standard method of delivery when returning the documents. I recognise Mr H said he was told in a call prior to sending in the documents that he should send them registered post. I haven’t been provided with a copy of this call but I don’t doubt that Mr H may have been told this information. The ‘signed for’ barcode attached to Mr H’s cover letter confirms he had sent them via registered post. But I’m not persuaded that Royal London had to use the same method of delivery to return the documents as received by them. There aren’t any rules which outline a particular method of delivering documents to a customer. But the regulator’s, The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), principles state a firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence. I’ve considered this in Ms H’s complaint. Having done so I’m persuaded that it’s reasonable to expect a business to use The Royal Mail standard postal service when delivering documents within the UK. And given the documents being returned weren’t original, albeit containing personal information, this would be a fair method to use when returning documents. On this occasion the documents have gone missing which is regrettable, but I’m satisfied Royal London took care to use a reasonable method for returning the documents to Mr H. Mr H mentioned that he has had fraudulent accounts opened in his name since the documents went missing. I can understand this would be distressing for Mr H but it’s worth noting I wouldn’t be able to award for any impact on him personally and it would be limited to the impact on Ms H. But, ultimately, as I’ve determined Royal London acted reasonably when returning the documents I wouldn’t be able to hold them responsible for any consequential impact, potential or otherwise, to Ms H on this occasion. My final decision My final decision is that Ms H’s complaint against Royal London is not upheld for the reasons set out above.

-- 2 of 3 --

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms H to accept or reject my decision before 28 April 2026. Andy Hurle Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --